No Adam = no Original Sin - right?

[Dunemeister]

I think a literal Adam is important to embrace the 2nd Adam. I believe one of the keys to embrace the truth is understanding the headship of both the 1st Adam and 2nd Adam. Being united to Adam, or the 2nd Adam is the basis of being cursed or blessed by God. Study Romans chapter 5 and let me know if you agree, and why?

I don't understand why I must embrace a literal first adam in order to embrace a literal last adam. If the first adam is a concept that implies certain ideas (such as the headship you speak of), one can claim to be the last adam by embodying those ideas in an appropriate way. I think that's the case with Jesus.

The same holds for the idea of "unity with Adam" or "with Christ." All humans are united to Adam by being dominated by what Paul refers to as "flesh". By faith, some humans are united to (a literal) Christ, and therefore dominated by the (literal) Spirit of God.

 

[Scott1]

So if the story is not literal then what act of sin was committed?

In the bible, Adam (The Man - as he is called), is shown to be a physical person but if the story is just a story then what act of disobedience was committed.....and by who?

Maybe this might help:

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
CCC (emphasis mine)

 

[Fish-Hunter]

I don't understand why I must embrace a literal first adam in order to embrace a literal last adam. If the first adam is a concept that implies certain ideas (such as the headship you speak of), one can claim to be the last adam by embodying those ideas in an appropriate way. I think that's the case with Jesus.

The same holds for the idea of "unity with Adam" or "with Christ." All humans are united to Adam by being dominated by what Paul refers to as "flesh". By faith, some humans are united to (a literal) Christ, and therefore dominated by the (literal) Spirit of God.

I did write with "I think". It seems some on this site may jump on the idea of a symbolic Adam and create a symbolic 2nd Adam, do you know what I mean? BTW...I am also edified and encourage by your postings.

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Maybe this might help:

"Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called concupiscence".

And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.
CCC (emphasis mine)

Did you know that offical Roman Catholic teaching embraces and teaches original sin? I embrace the biblical doctrine of original sin.

 

[Scott1]

Did you know that offical Roman Catholic teaching embraces and teaches original sin? I embrace the biblical doctrine of original sin.

Ummm.... I quoted the official RCC teaching.

Out of curiosity, how does your "biblical" doctrine differ from that of historical Christian teaching?

 

[Fish-Hunter]

Ummm.... I quoted the official RCC teaching.

Out of curiosity, how does your "biblical" doctrine differ from that of historical Christian teaching?

LOL...it is the historical Christian teaching. Original sin is much understood through the writings of Saint Augustine who expounded the Scriptures on the topic.

 

[Scott1]

LOL...it is the historical Christian teaching. Original sin is much understood through the writings of Saint Augustine who expounded the Scriptures on the topic.

So what was the point of your post? Is there a difference from your concept of offical Roman Catholic teaching and the biblical doctrine of original sin?

and why do you follow the writings of Saint Augustine? What was not sufficient in Scripture?

Some Christian history for ya:
The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

I don't suppose you concur with this piece of Christian history?

 

[Fish-Hunter]

So what was the point of your post? Is there a difference from your concept of offical Roman Catholic teaching and the biblical doctrine of original sin?

and why do you follow the writings of Saint Augustine? What was not sufficient in Scripture?

Some Christian history for ya:
The Church's teaching on the transmission of original sin was articulated more precisely in the fifth century, especially under the impulse of St. Augustine's reflections against Pelagianism, and in the sixteenth century, in opposition to the Protestant Reformation. Pelagius held that man could, by the natural power of free will and without the necessary help of God's grace, lead a morally good life; he thus reduced the influence of Adam's fault to bad example. The first Protestant reformers, on the contrary, taught that original sin has radically perverted man and destroyed his freedom; they identified the sin inherited by each man with the tendency to evil (concupiscentia), which would be insurmountable. The Church pronounced on the meaning of the data of Revelation on original sin especially at the second Council of Orange (529) and at the Council of Trent (1546).

I don't suppose you concur with this piece of Christian history?

Ah..come on...we all know that Protestant Christians and Roman Catholic Christians love Saint Augustine. We all know in part, therfore no one is infallible in their understanding of all truth...including the Popes...LOL.

 

[Scott1]

Ah..come on...we all know that Protestant Christians and Roman Catholic Christians love Saint Augustine. We all know in part, therfore no one is infallible in their understanding of all truth...including the Popes...LOL.

So you don't want to answer my questions?

 

[Muffled]

</B>
That one is not a very good one, the problem is “the sons of God” we must place this in time and the sons of God= Angeles (heavenly creatures) there is a better one in the account of Cain’s supplication and wondering Gen 4:13 And Cain said to Jehovah, My punishment is greater than I can bear.
Gen 4:14 Behold! You have driven me out from the face of the earth today, and I shall be hidden from Your face. And I shall be a fugitive and a vagabond in the earth, and it shall be that anyone who finds me shall kill me.
Gen 4:15 And Jehovah said to him, Therefore whoever kills Cain shall be avenged seven times. And Jehovah set a mark upon Cain so that anyone who found him should not kill him.
A life for a lifex7,
Gen 4:17 And Cain knew his wife, and she conceived and bore Enoch. And he built a city, and called the name of the city after the name of his son, Enoch.
My theory is this: THe earth and everything else was created millions of years ago and man has inhabited the earth in cyles of good and evil.
I think you are right on this “The earth and everything else was created millions of years ago” as meaning long time before the earthly creation Gen 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form and empty. And darkness was on the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved on the face of the waters.
But as for “man has inhabited the earth in cycles of good and evil”? Before creation “earth was without form and empty”

That is not an absolute gurantee that the people were angels. They may simply be like angels as Jesus states about people in Heaven. Anyone who has eternal life and is without sin is like a Heavenly angel (as opposed to being like satanic angels).

There is no time frame in Gen 1:1 except to say it was the beginning. That could have been millions of years ago.

You assume that the creation story is in error but my understanding is that "without form and empty" precedes the population of the earth and is not coincidental to it.

 

[Smoke]

That's simply historically false. St. Augustine of Hippo made the doctrine more explicit, but he didn't invent it. It had wide circulation in the Eastern churches before Augustine, although not specifically in an Augustinian form.

I said, "[t]he concept of original sin, as understood in Western Christianity." To show that my statement is false, you must show that the concept of original sin, as understood in Western Christianity, is present in the scriptures, in Eastern Christianity, or in Judaism. It's not. In fact, the doctrine as accepted by Rome and by many Protestants was invented by Augustine. I'm sorry to have to use italics and bold text so much, but it seems to be necessary.

(Besides, Augustine was from North Africa, so does that make him "Eastern" or "Western"?)

Hippo Regius was farther west than Rome and was subject to the Patriarchate of Rome. Augustine's peculiar theology is not accepted anywhere but in the Roman Church and the groups that split off from that Church.

It's also misleading to say that doctrines "don't appear" in scripture. The bible contains almost no extended didactic treatments of any doctrines. It contains mostly narratives. The doctrines must be derived mostly from the narratives.

Let me clarify: the doctrine of original sin, as taught by Augustine and accepted by many churches, is nowhere explicitly stated in the scriptures. Since you seem to agree with that statement, what's misleading about it? There is plenty of didactic material in the scriptures.

The only true statement in your post is that the concept of original sin is foreign to Judaism. However, all we know is that it's foreign to mainstream Judaism. Since the doctrine is reasonably derivable from scripture, it's at least logically possible for there to have been Jewish groups that have formulated that doctrine.

Rather than setting me to prove a negative, suppose you find me some such Jewish group.

 

[Scott1]

In fact, the doctrine as accepted by Rome and by many Protestants was invented by Augustine. I'm sorry to have to use italics and bold text so much, but it seems to be necessary.

Huh?

Theophilus of Antioch
"For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death" (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]).'

Irenaeus
"But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]" (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).'
"Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning" (ibid., 5:16:3.)

Tertullian
"On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation" (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200]).
"'Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection' [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word 'man,' who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ" (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]). "Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live" (Homilies on Jeremiah 8:1 [post A.D. 244]).

Let me clarify: the doctrine of original sin, as taught by Augustine and accepted by many churches, is nowhere explicitly stated in the scriptures.

Seems many in the early church disagree with that assesment....Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 seems to come up a bit with the Fathers...

 

[Smoke]

Huh?

Theophilus of Antioch
"For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death" (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]).'

Irenaeus
"But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]" (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).'
"Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning" (ibid., 5:16:3.)

Tertullian
"On account of his [Adam&#8217;s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation" (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200]).
"'Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection' [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word 'man,' who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ" (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]). "Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live" (Homilies on Jeremiah 8:1 [post A.D. 244]).

Seems many in the early church disagree with that assesment....Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 seems to come up a bit with the Fathers...

I didn't say there was no concept of original sin in the Eastern Church -- although most Eastern theologians would, in fact, prefer to call it "ancestral sin." I have been at great pains to be explicit about exactly what concept of original sin I'm talking about, and I can't imagine why it's so difficult for people to understand.

 

[Scott1]

I didn't say there was no concept of original sin in the Eastern Church

Huh?

The Bishop of Lyons was part of the Eastern Church?

-- although most Eastern theologians would, in fact, prefer to call it "ancestral sin."

Just so your clear on the fact that as soon as this teaching of Augustine became known in the east it was rejected as heresy, which is why the Orthodox see Augustine as a saint for his piety but reject his teachings on the whole and certainly don't hold him in anywhere near the same esteem as the RCs do.

 

[Smoke]

Huh?

The Bishop of Lyons was part of the Eastern Church?

"Huh?" indeed!

Who said he was?

Just so your clear on the fact that as soon as this teaching of Augustine became known in the east it was rejected as heresy, which is why the Orthodox see Augustine as a saint for his piety but reject his teachings on the whole and certainly don't hold him in anywhere near the same esteem as the RCs do.

Um ... I don't think you've been following what I've been saying at all.

Augustine's teaching on original sin is foreign to the Eastern Church. I've been saying that all along.

 

[Scott1]

Um ... I don't think you've been following what I've been saying at all.

I'm sorry... I thought you were trying to say that Augustine's invented original sin.... which certainly was not the case, my bad.

 

[Muffled]

Huh?

Theophilus of Antioch
"For the first man, disobedience resulted in his expulsion from paradise. It was not as if there were any evil in the tree of knowledge; but from disobedience man drew labor, pain, grief, and, in the end, he fell prostrate in death" (Ad Autolycus 2:25 [A.D. 181]).'

Irenaeus
"But this man . . . is Adam, if the truth be told, the first-formed man. . . . We, however, are all from him; and as we are from him, we have inherited his title [of sin]" (Against Heresies 3:23:2 [inter A.D. 180-190]).'
"Indeed, through the first Adam we offended God by not observing his command. Through the second Adam, however, we are reconciled, and are made obedient even unto death [Rom. 8:36, 2 Cor. 5:18-19]. For we were debtors to none other except to him, whose commandment we transgressed at the beginning" (ibid., 5:16:3.)

Tertullian
"On account of his [Adam’s] transgression man was given over to death; and the whole human race, which was infected by his seed, was made the transmitter of condemnation" (The Testimony of the Soul 3:2 [inter A.D. 197-200]).
"'Because by a man came death, by a man also comes resurrection' [Romans 5:17]. Here by the word 'man,' who consists of a body, as we have often shown already, I understand that it is a fact that Christ had a body. And if we are all made to live in Christ as we were made to die in Adam, then, as in the flesh we were made to die in Adam, so also in the flesh are we made to live in Christ" (Against Marcion 5:9:5 [inter A.D. 207-212]).

Origen
"The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants [Matt. 19:14; Luke 18:15-16; Acts 2:38-39]. For the apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stain of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit" [Titus 3:5] (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 244]). "Everyone in the world falls prostrate under sin. And it is the Lord who sets up those who are cast down and who sustains all who are falling. In Adam all die, and thus the world falls prostrate and requires to be set up again, so that in Christ all may be made to live" (Homilies on Jeremiah 8:1 [post A.D. 244]).

Seems many in the early church disagree with that assesment....Romans 5:12-21 and 1 Corinthians 15:22 seems to come up a bit with the Fathers...

This does not say that sin is passed downbecause of this one act of disobedience. It only reveals that the act had its repercussions in the physical world.

I don't get where Irenaeus gets this idea from. It certainly is not in the text.

I don't agree with this. Adam could not pass down his condemnation to us unless you want to view death as a condemnation. I do not. I see it as a necessity for temporal life. When there is eternal life there is no death.

Here is where I agree with Mary Baker Eddy that sin is not our innate state but is an unnatural state that occurred after we were created.

This is only true when sin is permitted by God in the world. When God does not permit sin no-one falls prostrate to sin.

 

[gnostic]

I think the problem here is that people seemed to think Adam and Eve were immortals before they ate the fruit, but they weren't. They were mortals before and after the Fall. The only things that had changed was that they would suffer. No free-handouts.

Why else would this god bar them from Eden? So they can't eat from the Tree of Life.

But then again, I don't believe in the Genesis' story about the beginning.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

I think the problem here is that people seemed to think Adam and Eve were immortals before they ate the fruit, but they weren't. They were mortals before and after the Fall. The only things that had changed was that they would suffer. No free-handouts.

But remember, none of this actually took place....At least that is what people are saying here. All of these stories are just that....(Stories)......none of it should be taken literal. Even though all of the theologians who Scott1 cited seem to think Adam and Eve were real people.

 

[Scott1]

Here is where I agree with Mary Baker Eddy ...

.

NOW I get it.....

Thanks for your post.